6.  The applicant was born in 1969 and is currently serving a prison sentence in the “TRNC”.
7.  On 29 May 2001 a businessman was found dead in his office in the “TRNC”. His throat had been slit and there were also a number of injuries to his head caused by blows. According to the autopsy report, the businessman had been killed in his office between 8 p.m. and 10.45 p.m. on 29 May 2001.
8.  The remaining facts of the case are disputed by the parties and are set out separately. The facts as presented by the applicant are set out in Section B below (paragraphs 9-22). The Government’s submissions concerning the facts are summarised in Section C below (paragraphs 23-32). The documentary evidence submitted by the applicant and the Government is summarised in Section D (paragraphs 33-46).
9.  The applicant, his wife and their two children moved to the “TRNC” in 1997 and the applicant opened two shops, selling musical equipment. The applicant did not speak much Turkish.
10.  At around midnight on 29 May 2001 the applicant was arrested at his home by police officers. He was asked to drive to the Central Police Station in his own car, accompanied by a police officer. On his arrival at the police station he was handcuffed, questioned by the director of the police station and his fingerprints were taken. When the applicant asked the police why he had been arrested, he received no answers.
11.  The following morning, namely 30 May 2001, the police brought in Mr M.E. and Mr W.F., two Egyptian students who had arrived in the “TRNC” three months previously.
12.  On 2 June 2001 the applicant was brought before a judge who ordered his detention for an additional period of eight days.
13.  The same day the applicant was interviewed by Mr Z.A., a police investigator, who told the applicant that, in the opinion of the police, Mr M.E. was the murderer. Police investigator Mr Z.A. then questioned the applicant and recorded his statement on a piece of paper which he asked the applicant to sign. The applicant did not understand what was written in the statement because the handwriting was illegible and his Turkish was not sufficient. He asked for an interpreter. But when police investigator Mr Z.A. told him that there was nothing in the statement that he should be afraid of, and that his lawyer would translate it for him the following morning, the applicant signed the statement. Police investigator Mr Z.A. then persuaded the applicant to write something in Turkish on another piece of paper and sign. He told the applicant that he would be released the following morning.
14.  On 3 June 2001 the applicant was taken to the office of Mr E.D., the chief of police. Mr H.M., who had been appointed as the applicant’s legal representative, was also present in the room. The chief of police told the applicant that he believed that the applicant and Mr M.E. (see paragraph 11 above) were the murderers. When the applicant protested his innocence, the police chief threatened him. The applicant was then handcuffed and taken back to his cell. Throughout this time the applicant’s lawyer Mr H.M. stayed quiet and did not intervene.
15.  The same day the applicant was taken to another room to see police investigator Mr Z.A., who had questioned him the previous day. Mr Z.A. and a number of other police officers told the applicant that they knew about the confession the applicant had made to the chief of police Mr E.D. earlier in the day, and asked him to sign that confession which had since been written on a piece of paper. The applicant refused to sign it and asked for his lawyer. When his lawyer Mr H.M. came into the room the applicant asked police investigator Mr Z.A. to read to his lawyer the statements he had signed the previous day. This request was refused by Mr Z.A., who stated that it was against their rules. The applicant was then taken back to his cell.
16.  The applicant was detained in the police station until he was brought before the judge and charged on 22 June 2001. This time an interpreter was present in the courtroom and the applicant rejected the allegations against him. The judge remanded the applicant in custody and transferred him to a prison where he would be held until the end of the criminal proceedings.
17.  The trial began before the Lefkoşa Assize Court (“the trial court”). In the course of the trial the applicant dismissed his lawyer and instructed another lawyer, Mr M.A., to represent him.
18.  During one of the hearings the applicant’s lawyer Mr M.A. objected to the trial court’s adding the statements taken from the applicant in police custody to the case file, arguing that they had been taken in the absence of an interpreter. When this request was rejected the lawyer Mr M.A. withdrew from representing the applicant. Despite the applicant’s wish to represent himself in the proceedings, the trial court appointed Mr B.B. as his legal representative.
19.  On 4 March 2002 the applicant was found guilty as charged and sentenced to life imprisonment. He appealed.
20.  The Court of Appeal adjourned the initial hearing four times and did not begin the examination of the case until 2005. It upheld the applicant’s conviction in 2006.
21.  The prison where the applicant had been detained until his conviction in 2002 had been overcrowded. On occasion, single beds had had to be used to accommodate two persons. After he was transferred to another prison following his conviction, he was detained in solitary confinement on one occasion. On 8 May 2007 special police forces had carried out an operation in the prison and had ill-treated the inmates. The applicant had been ill-treated more seriously than his fellow inmates.
22.  Although he had written to a number of authorities and complained about the circumstances of his detention, nothing was done to remedy them. The authorities to whom he had sent letters of complaints included the Sudanese Embassy in Ankara, the Prime Minister, the Ministry of the Interior and the prison administration.
23.  On the night of the murder the police received information from the deceased person’s family that the deceased had gone to his office to meet with the applicant. The police then went to the applicant’s home the same evening and summoned him to the police station to help the police with their investigation into the murder. The applicant drove to the police station in his own car, accompanied by a police officer. The applicant was not arrested; he was merely kept in the police station to ensure the efficacy of the investigation.
24.   The same evening the investigating officer Mr Z.A. took an “open statement” – a statement taken without a caution as the applicant had not yet been treated as an accused – from the applicant (see paragraph 34 below). All that time the conversation was in Turkish because the applicant had sufficient knowledge of Turkish and never asked for an interpreter. In fact, an interpreter was present but the applicant did not want his services, insisting that his Turkish was sufficiently good.
25.  According to the “TRNC” legislation, any detained person must be brought before a judge within twenty-four hours. The person can then be detained in police custody for a period of up to three months but a judge reviews the detention every eight days.
26.  When the applicant was brought before the judge on 2 June 2001, the police explained to the judge, in Turkish, the reasons for the applicant’s detention. The applicant did not complain to the judge that he did not speak Turkish.
27.  On 3 June 2001 the applicant made an oral confession in front of Mr E.D., the chief of police. This meeting was arranged by the applicant’s lawyer Mr H.M. who in turn must have been instructed to do so by the applicant.
28.  During the hearings held in the course of the trial the applicant gave evidence in Turkish, even though an interpreter was present in the courtroom.
29.  Although the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment, according to the applicable legislation in force at the time he will spend a total of eight years in prison.
30.  Initially the date of 26 May 2004 was fixed as the date of the first appeal hearing but the Court of Appeal had to postpone it until 1 November 2004 on account of the illness of the applicant’s lawyer. The hearing was once again postponed on 1 November 2004 as the applicant’s lawyer had still not recovered from his illness. The new date for the first hearing was set as 15 June 2005. Nevertheless, on 15 June 2005 the applicant turned up at the Court of Appeal without a lawyer and the hearing had to be postponed once more, this time until 21 September 2005.
31.  Subsequently, the Court of Appeal held hearings between 17 and 21 October 2005 and then between 7 and 11 November 2005. The decision of the Appeal Court was pronounced on 2 March 2006.
32.  When the applicant complained of headaches and problems with his eyesight, he was medically examined in 2007 and 2008 and a number of tests were carried out. According to the medical reports prepared at the end of these examinations, there were no traces of haemorrhage. The applicant was referred to a rheumatology specialist.
33.  The applicant was questioned by police investigator Mr Z.A. on 30 May 2001 and 2 June 2001. According to the statements, no lawyer or interpreter was present on these occasions.
34.  In the statement taken between 3.40 a.m. and 4.50 a.m. on 30 May 2001, the applicant was recorded as having stated that he knew the businessman and that he had cashed two cheques in the businessman’s office on 25 May 2001. In order for the first cheque to be cleared the applicant needed to deposit the money in the bank on 30 May 2001. On 29 May 2001 the businessman had telephoned him on a number of occasions and asked him to bring the money back to him at his office. He would then return the cheque to the applicant instead of having to take it to the bank himself the following day. The last telephone call had been made at 9.20 p.m. on 29 May and the applicant had told the businessman that “he might come”. However, at 9.30 p.m. the applicant had gone to bed but was arrested at 11 p.m. by police officers. There is no mention in this statement of the killing of the businessman or of any other offence.
35.  In the statement taken between 10.30 p.m. on 2 June 2001 and 1.50 a.m. on 3 June 2001, the applicant was recorded as having stated that on 29 May 2001 he had gone home at 8.30 p.m. and seen Mr M.E. (see paragraph 11 above) outside his house. He had told Mr M.E. that the businessman was waiting for him and had then gone into the house. When he had come out of the house Mr M.E. had already gone. Between 9 p.m. and 9.15 p.m. Mr M.E. had telephoned the applicant and said that he was at the businessman’s office and that the alarms were ringing. The applicant had then gone to that office and seen Mr M.E. waiting outside. Mr M.E. had then told the applicant that he had gone inside and hit the businessman with a wooden stick and had then tried unsuccessfully to open the safe. When the businessman regained consciousness Mr M.E. had stabbed him. When the applicant said “Don’t tell me you killed him”, Mr M.E. replied “Yes he died; he did not survive”.
36.  In his statements to the police Mr M.E. was recorded as having stated that the applicant had killed the businessman on his own.
37.  On 22 June 2001 the police investigator Mr Z.A. read out the charges against the applicant. This time an interpreter was also present. The applicant denied the allegations and stated that this was the first time he was hearing them. A statement to that effect was drafted and signed by the applicant.
38.  On 25 September 2001 hearings began before the trial court. The applicant was charged with fourteen offences, which included, inter alia, premeditated murder, violence, robbery and the possession of prohibited weapons, including firearms. The trial court heard forty-five prosecution and nine defence witnesses. The prosecution submitted fifty-three items of evidence.
39.  The trial court had regard to the two defendants’ statements and decided to disregard those statements in which they implicated each other. The chief of police Mr E.D. testified before the trial court and said that the applicant had gone to his office and confessed to the murder.
40.  In the course of the trial the police investigator Mr Z.A. told the trial court that when he had questioned the applicant on 30 May 2001 an interpreter had been present, but that the applicant had preferred to give his statement in Turkish. Another police officer told the trial court that he spoke Arabic and was present at the police station on 30 May 2001. Nevertheless, the applicant had not wanted his assistance, insisting instead on giving his statement in Turkish.
41.  During a hearing held on 8 October 2001 the applicant told the trial court that he could speak Turkish but did not have “a complete knowledge of the Turkish language”. He could not write in Turkish at all and his reading in Turkish was poor. He added that, in the early hours of 30 May 2001 the police investigator Mr Z.A. had hand-drafted the statement and had asked him to sign it. When he had told Mr Z.A. that he did not know what was written in it, Mr Z.A. had convinced him to sign the statement by telling him that there was nothing in the statement which could harm him.
42.  During a hearing held on 23 January 2002 the applicant preferred to be cross-examined in Turkish. He told the trial court that if he did not understand a question he would ask the interpreter who was already present in the courtroom. He also told the trial court that, although he could speak Turkish, he would not be able to write in Turkish. Furthermore, he could only read typed texts in Turkish but not handwritten texts.
43.  On 4 March 2002, in its sixty-eight page judgment, the trial court found the applicant and the co-accused not guilty on the charge of premeditated murder, but guilty of the offence of manslaughter and thirteen other counts. It sentenced them both to life imprisonment. In reaching its decision the trial court had particular regard to the testimony of the chief of police Mr E.D (see paragraphs 14 and 27 above) and the statements taken from the applicant on 30 May 2001 and 2 June 2001.
44.  On 22 March 2002 the applicant appealed against his conviction and argued, in particular, that the trial court had been wrong in admitting in evidence the statements taken from him by police investigator Mr Z.A.; it was obvious that his knowledge of the Turkish language was very limited, but despite this he had not been given the assistance of an interpreter when questioned by Mr Z.A.
45.  The first hearing which the Court of Appeal had scheduled for 15 June 2005 was postponed until 21 September 2005 because one of the judges was on holiday abroad. On 21 September 2005 it postponed the hearing until 17 October 2005. After six more postponements, the Court of Appeal began holding hearings on 7 November 2005.
46.  On 2 March 2006 the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the trial court. It ruled that the trial court had carried out an adequate examination of the evidence, heard the witnesses and found it established beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant was guilty. In the Court of Appeal’s 32-page decision there was no mention of the applicant’s complaint concerning the lack of an interpreter when he was questioned by the police.